The Ketchum keystone. [volume] (Ketchum, Idaho) 1885-1899, 1887-01-29

with the Saxon usage in such cases
This course was taken, but the re-
suit was not satisfactory to Ode
Bishop of Bayeuk, who had presi.
ded at the hearing, and he ordered
that the case be reheard, in accord
ance with Norman custom, before
twelve men, who should give their
opinion of the matter upon their
oaths.
It seems that originally the jury
did not trouble themselves to take
evidence in court. Summoned from
the very neighborhood in which the
transaction at issue had occurred,
they were supposed to be familiar
with its details, and they therefore
"a true verdict" gave, not as now,
in accordance with evidence form
ally drawn up, but in accordance
with their own knowledge and OBJ
servation. 1t was enough in civil
cases that the verdict should be
upon their belief. Nor was it nec-
essary that they should all agree.
Unanimity does not seem to have
been insisted upon before the end
of the thirteenth century, and even
when it was regarded as an abso-
lutte necessity an easy way was
taken of getting at the desired re-
suits. What was done was to keep
adding fresh members to the orig
inal jury until twelve were got to
agree. And even later, when the
course was adopted of starving a
jury into unanimity, it was within
the jurisdiction of the court to ac-
cept a majority verdict after the
jury had had what was considered
ample time to make up their minds.
1t was not until the reign of Ed
ward III that it was settled in the
Kings Bench that the verdict must
he unanimous and this decision
has ever since been binding in the
English courts. Early in the reign,
however, a case occurred in which
a juror, in an action of trespass,
would not agree with his fellows,
and he was summarily dealt with.
The Judge committed him to Jail
and took the verdict of the eleven.
This was not so great an outrage
as that which occurred as late as
1853, when, on the trial Of Sir
Nicholas Throckmorton, for high
treason, the jury, who found the
defendant not guilty, were heavily
fined therefor, and imprisoned for
several months. In Scotlend the
verdict of a majority still suffices,
but there fifteen men are sworn out
of list of forty-fve. There, also,
three verdicts may lie returned
4" Not guilty." Guilty" and "Not
proven" In England "Not proven"
is regarded as verdict of acquittal,
and this is the practical effect of it
in Scotland, though in many cases
it is liable to the Irish interpreta-
ton, ave find the defendant not
guilty, but he mustn't do it again"
The theory in all criminal cases is
that man stands his trial before
his peers. 1t is no longer, however,
necessary that the jury
be made up of persons
drawn from the same station of life
as the accused. 1t is enough that
they are reputable and unpreju-
diced men drawn from the county
or district in which the trial is held.
But it may happen that prisoner
sees reason to find fault with the
of the jury. In that
case he has the right Of challenge,
and the men whom he objects to
will be removed and others put in
their places. The prosecutor, on
the other hand, has right of chal-
lenge also. 1t is q right, however,
on both sides, with its limitations,
otherwise it might be exercised in
definitely and to the complete ex-
haustion of the list of available
jurors.
In the United States the chal-
leng principle is carried to extreme
lengths. Not unfrequently in the
courts there several days are taken
up before jury can be got together
in whose composition the Judge
and the parties to the suit feel that
they have confidence. This is not
because of lack of good material
from which to draw. The practice
in too many instances is resorted
to for the mere sake of delay. The
object, ostensibly, is to get a jury
wholly free from prejudice, but
very often the aim of the defending
cousel is to get either majority OF
men into the box who are likely, In
his estimation, to favor the pris-
toner's case, or to secure at least
one or two who, he fancies, will be
likely to stand by his client. So
,nanifestly fair is the selection of
juries in English courts that the
powell on either side is
rarely exercised. No English Judge
would tolerate loss of time over the
process. 1t is always a good cause
of challenge against a juryman If
he has been known to express an